- gpca-votes - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Green Party Sex Tape video
by james clark 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

I also agree, it doesn't look good. One correction though, neither Veronika Fimbres, nor Christopher Carlson are trying for the endorsement. Both are opposed to the process by which the endorsement is being handled. On Mon, Mar 5, 2018, 8:04 AM John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: > Thanks for sharing that! I completely agree. Fortunately, there are > other Green gubernatorial candidates seeking our endorsement. > Veronika Fimbres has had a few good articles written about her, and > I don't know much about Chris. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > >

2 1

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Green Party Sex Tape video
by gdjohnson2＠juno.com 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

All I see is mention of a hypothetical sex tape as a way of making a statement about campaign financing. It also gives Josh an excuse for an eye-catching title that will draw clicks. No adult content in the video. A tad risky, a cheap gimmick, but not anything I can get excited about. --GJ On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 07:46:29 -0800 Jeff Lebow <jlebow(a)socal.rr.com> writes: Is this real or a hatchet job by Green opponents? If it is real, it is really poor judgement and is quite disturbing. I could not support a candidate taking this approach to fundraising. It?s just wrong. The fair thing would be for the candidate himself to explain whether this is real or why he took this extreme action. Jeff Lebow OC Greens Sent from my iPhone On Mar 4, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Angelica Duenas <angelica(a)aduenas.org> wrote: Dear SGA delegates I am very disturbed by the Green Party Sex Tape video (https://youtu.be/dxhUS-QQPbg) created and posted by Gubernatorial candidate Josh Jones. I find the video offensive and an example of extremely poor judgment by someone seeking to represent our party as a candidate for our state?s highest office. I was first introduced face to face with the Green Party at the August 2016 Green Party national convention in Houston, which I attended as an interested observer, after being turned off by the Democratic Party (as a Berniecrat delegate at the Democratic National Convention a week earlier.) At the GPUS convention, I met David Cobb, Laura Wells, Mike Feinstein, Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, Cornel West (when things looked like he might Go Green) and Luis Rodriguez (the GPCA's 2014 Gubernatorial candidate). Based upon those interactions, I was impressed by the Green Party, effectively going Green the following month. Since then, I have learned a lot about the Green Party and its inner workings. I love how there is a high value on internal democracy. And I love the GPCA and GPUS platforms ? solid. But I have to say that if I would have come across this Josh Jones Sex Tape video in 2016 prior to attending the Green Party convention, I would have not given the Green Party a chance at all. The concept and content is immature and damaging to our party. A more thoughtful treatment could have been a great PSA moment. Instead it is an embarrassment, plain and simple. Given this, for anyone seeking our party?s endorsement, I think the video should be deleted from YouTube. But at a minimum, if this embarrassment is to remain on-line, the use of the words ?Green Party? should be removed from the video's title. No one in our party has the right to post something like that, misrepresenting our party?s name in that manner. Disappointed in Los Angeles, Angelica Due?as -- Angelica M. Duenas, M.A. GPLAC Councilmember GYG Delegate GPCA CC Member GPUS Alternate Delegate "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - John Lennon -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes ____________________________________________________________ Doctors Shocked She Used This To Erase Her Wrinkles healthzoneworldwide.com http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5a9d72dd491472dc1329st03vuc

6 5

Discuss ID 157: Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership
by GPCA Votes 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #157 Ranked Choice Vote *Bylaws Amendment: Clarify Notice Requirements and Reset Quorum at a Minimum of 50% For Standing Committees’ Voting Membership* Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time *Background* This proposal has been brought forth because in recent years a number of standing committees of the Green Party of California (GPCA) have been unable to conduct any business for lengthy periods of time due to failure to reach quorum. This state of affairs has often impeded the GPCA Coordinating Committee (CC) from fulfilling its own responsibilities per GPCA Bylaw 8-1.7 (“Request and receive reports from Committees and Working Groups, refer matters to them, and monitor and assist their work”). GPCA standing committees are capped, for gender balance, at an even number of members, and currently establish quorum at a majority of voting members. This proposed amendment would establish the minimum quorum at least 50% of standing committees’ voting membership. This proposal would also clarify an ambiguity in notice requirements for calling meetings. The language of GPCA Bylaw 9-3.1 is silent regarding notice requirements for standing committees that establish regular meeting schedules. In practice, most if not all standing committees establish regular meeting schedules for their work year. The proposed language would make explicit that two weeks’ notice is required for meetings that fall outside a standing committee’s regular meeting schedule, should one be set. *Proposal* That GPCA Bylaw Article 9-3 be amended as follows: That Article 9-3 be amended from its current text: Section 9-3 Meetings 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives outlined in its work plan. Meetings must be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee members. 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum is a majority of the committee's voting membership. To read as follows: Section 9-3 Meetings 9-3.1 Committees shall meet during GPCA state meetings, on teleconferences and otherwise as necessary to achieve the objectives outlined in their work plans. Meetings outside any regular meeting schedule shall be called with a minimum of two weeks notice to committee members. 9-3.2 The decision-making process for committees shall follow that described for the General Assembly in 7-5.5. Quorum shall be at least 50% of the committee's voting membership. Sponsors: The proposed amendment has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Butte County and the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

10 18

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by shane que hee 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

1 0

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by shane que hee 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

3 2

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by shane que hee 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

9 17

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by shane que hee 25 Feb '18

25 Feb '18

1 0

Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by GPCA Votes 24 Feb '18

24 Feb '18

*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates* Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time *Background* The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. *Proposal* That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>*

15 34

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by gdjohnson2＠juno.com 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

In Orange County, we require any candidate seeking endorsement, Green, independent, or otherwise, to submit a written statement of which parts of the GPCA platform they agree or disagree with, and their reasoning for any disagreements. This keeps the casuals from wasting our time, and gives us something on paper that we can wave in their faces if they end up violating our principles when in office. --GJ On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:01:04 -0800 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> writes: Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have an example: Bernie Sanders On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow(a)socal.rr.com> wrote: I?m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes(a)gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party?s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to ?throw their hat in the ring? and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as ?spoilers? or ?third-party? candidates who ?can?t win,? the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label ?Green Party,? not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you?ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to ?team Green Party,? while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an ?umbrella party? or ?big tent? for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive ?third? party with a narrow ?sectarian? view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes ____________________________________________________________ How To Remove Eye Bags & Lip Lines Fast (Watch) Fit Mom Daily http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5a8f35da6d1535d93f74st01vuc

2 1

Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
by james clark 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking office. On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> wrote: Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's > part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of > support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have an example: Bernie Sanders >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for >>> putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in >>> our struggles for political reforms, etc. >>> >>> Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote >>> the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources >>> helping others who may or may not help us in return. >>> On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow(a)socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against >>>> politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions >>>>> against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be >>>>> presented to registered voters to decide. >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* >>>>>> >>>>>> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements >>>>>> for General Election Candidates* >>>>>> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura >>>>>> Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck >>>>>> Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 >>>>>> Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 >>>>>> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time >>>>>> >>>>>> *Background* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing >>>>>> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the >>>>>> GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on >>>>>> endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name >>>>>> in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, >>>>>> even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and >>>>>> Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and >>>>>> federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom >>>>>> candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party >>>>>> Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate >>>>>> running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between >>>>>> good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate >>>>>> money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. >>>>>> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not >>>>>> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party >>>>>> is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of >>>>>> grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the >>>>>> pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble >>>>>> party-building efforts in California. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to >>>>>> implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party >>>>>> system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we >>>>>> will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse >>>>>> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party >>>>>> affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the >>>>>> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied >>>>>> organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get >>>>>> an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not >>>>>> be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public >>>>>> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being >>>>>> marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t >>>>>> win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid >>>>>> marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label >>>>>> “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary >>>>>> folks in the nation and certainly in California. >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and >>>>>> even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to >>>>>> like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We >>>>>> need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to >>>>>> switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. >>>>>> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures >>>>>> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” >>>>>> for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like >>>>>> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow >>>>>> “sectarian” view of how change happens. >>>>>> >>>>>> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA >>>>>> Endorsement Policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Proposal* >>>>>> >>>>>> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> That the policy be amended from its current text: >>>>>> >>>>>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by >>>>>> the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election >>>>>> candidates who are not Green Party members. >>>>>> >>>>>> To read as follow: >>>>>> >>>>>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept >>>>>> corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that >>>>>> accepts corporate campaign contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green >>>>>> Party of Yolo County. >>>>>> >>>>>> Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s >>>>>> ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations >>>>>> >>>>>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org>* >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>>> >>>> -- >>> gpca-votes mailing list >>> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >>> >> > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > > -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

2 2